This is the first time I have listened to an interview of this minister, but what he says here summarizes the thoughts of many in developing and third-world countries. I would especially like to underline the parts at 2:09 and 5:59:
This is how a lot of us in the third world feel about the West's pressure of poorer countries to make sacrifices in order to side with the West in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. From the United States' request that Saudi Arabia "open the taps" for oil to the West's desire to push third-world countries against China, it has felt like Western governments are taking a historically amnesiac, self-centered approach that lacks the least bit of self-awareness.
The issue is not that they're asking the developing and third world to aid them; it's that doing so requires the presence of bridges and relations that much of the West, especially the U.S., has spent decades burning and throwing under the bus. From Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq to Africa and South America, countries like the U.S., U.K., and France have overthrown governments, practiced military interventionism, and upended political stability for their own gain.
While the U.S. and EU were busy stockpiling a surplus of vaccines, China provided many poor countries with them. Why should we sacrifice our good relationship with them for the sake of the West? If someone argues that it is because of China's poor record on human rights, then the same could be said for the U.S. and EU, albeit in different ways. China persecutes a subset of its population (Uyghurs) and bullies Tibet and Taiwan, while the U.S. et al. have bullied and engaged in violence against weaker, poorer countries.
No global power is innocent, but the idea that the West's problems are everyone's problems but not the other way around, as the Indian minister points out, is a key issue here. The U.S. and its key allies have barely done anything to foster goodwill and mutual cooperation with the likes of Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan--all of which could have been significantly helpful allies against Russia--yet they now expect the rest of the world to take their side even if that may damage useful relationships with China, India, and others.
I don't know much about this minister's politics, but I believe he has spoken a lot of truth in this case. If Western governments want the rest of the world to stand with them, it seems to me that they need to do more to build bridges and start thinking beyond furthering their own interests even at the expense of other countries and their citizens' lives.
This is how a lot of us in the third world feel about the West's pressure of poorer countries to make sacrifices in order to side with the West in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. From the United States' request that Saudi Arabia "open the taps" for oil to the West's desire to push third-world countries against China, it has felt like Western governments are taking a historically amnesiac, self-centered approach that lacks the least bit of self-awareness.
The issue is not that they're asking the developing and third world to aid them; it's that doing so requires the presence of bridges and relations that much of the West, especially the U.S., has spent decades burning and throwing under the bus. From Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq to Africa and South America, countries like the U.S., U.K., and France have overthrown governments, practiced military interventionism, and upended political stability for their own gain.
While the U.S. and EU were busy stockpiling a surplus of vaccines, China provided many poor countries with them. Why should we sacrifice our good relationship with them for the sake of the West? If someone argues that it is because of China's poor record on human rights, then the same could be said for the U.S. and EU, albeit in different ways. China persecutes a subset of its population (Uyghurs) and bullies Tibet and Taiwan, while the U.S. et al. have bullied and engaged in violence against weaker, poorer countries.
No global power is innocent, but the idea that the West's problems are everyone's problems but not the other way around, as the Indian minister points out, is a key issue here. The U.S. and its key allies have barely done anything to foster goodwill and mutual cooperation with the likes of Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan--all of which could have been significantly helpful allies against Russia--yet they now expect the rest of the world to take their side even if that may damage useful relationships with China, India, and others.
I don't know much about this minister's politics, but I believe he has spoken a lot of truth in this case. If Western governments want the rest of the world to stand with them, it seems to me that they need to do more to build bridges and start thinking beyond furthering their own interests even at the expense of other countries and their citizens' lives.
Last edited:
